November 20, 2007

Mandatory Service.

The other day on the radio they were having a political discussions and one of the guests made the statement that he felt that everyone in America should have to do a mandatory 4 years military service before the age of 40. It doesn't necessarily have to be in a combat role, but they have to serve in some capacity. (Clerks, supply, etc)

This topic was debated by the hosts, other guests and callers and made me wonder. I think military service is a good thing. Yet I don't know if I like the idea of mandatory military service as you may get undesirable candidates in the military. It's no secret that I never served. Not that I didn't try, but I was rejected from all branches of the military due to a medical problem... mainly that I had four metal pins in my left leg holding it together. After college I just wanted to get my career started. By this guests plan I would have served, probably as a clerk, but I still would have served.

But would I have gotten the same experience if I had? Part of the reason I was rejected is because they didn't think I would make it through boot with out damaging my leg even worse. So if I don't go through boot, am I not missing out on the opportunities and experience he wants me to have? You know, the discipline, camaraderie and spirit of our fighting men and women.

Serving your country in some form or fashion, yes. Mandatory MILITARY service? No. Part of what makes our military great is that those who go in pretty much really want to be there. Having been in the military I remember those who were there who realized they had made the wrong choice, and did nothing but bitch and moan, bringing down the morale of everyone. Having it full of a bunch of whiners like that won't serve anyone's purpose.

While I don't entirely agree with mandatory service, I also don't think it would hurt too much. Most countries that implement it ask for about one to three years... some even less. And not all of them ask for immediate service, they just say that between the ages of "" and "" so much time must be served.

It would do some folks good. And it may help to keep dumbasses from running their sucks about shit of which they know nothing, if they had firsthand experience.

Some of these countries' peeps are actually proud to do their service. Imagine that...

'Course, as Bou stated, those with money and connections would slide out of it.

And there is the point that Shadoglare made. And thanks to our new user friendly military, those idiots cannot be properly dealt with...

So, who pays for this little plan? If you bring in all these people to serve, they you must have facilities for them... It "sounds" like a good idea until you start thinking of the logistics. Everytime I hear one of these plans I give it the Who, What, When, Where, and Why test.

Who are you going to pull in, what are you going to do with them, where are you going to put them, and why is this a good idea?

Bill and Hill closed many bases - which have now been converted to civilian use - where are you going to put the extra people? Where will they be trained, housed, fed? What military hospital facilities will take care of them when they get sick? Who is going to coordinate this plan? And with our military budget already a source of derision... where is the money going to come from? This is a "millions of extra people" plan - not just a few thousand.

Who is going to train them? You'll have to pull in more active duty people into training - which takes them away from the vital jobs they are doing now. Who takes over for those pulled out to train the green recruits that will only stay a short time in the military... about long enough for the training and then they leave.

Yet another feel good plan with no thought behind it except that "it would be a good thing". I don't see it. If we had a framework in place to deal with this, I could see it - but this is a MUCH larger country than any of the others that have mandatory service - which makes it far more difficult to implement than any other country. And we have always been a country that considers it essential to give people the option of doing or not doing. We have the worst problems when we have a conscripted Army.

This is a short version of all the bad things about the plan. The only good thing... you make people serve for a period of time and maybe they get something out of it. Is this a fair trade off for all the rest?

how about some form of "service" period - as a teacher, police officer, fire fighter or the guy who picks up trash on the highway. Some kind of volunteerism that connects them to the country and serves the nation. I firmly believe that not everyone should be a soldier/sailor/marine/airman, but I do think that service to the country makes for better citizenry because they earned it.

I don't know forcing someone to be a teacher or doing public service is a good idea. The point the guest was trying to make regarding Mandatory Military service was that it was supposed to help support the military, give the citizenry more appreciation of the military and to make people more accountable for what is happening in our country.

As ex-law enforcement I can see where you are coming from, but I don't know if we'd want someone to be a teacher that really isn't qualified. As for picking up trash on the side of the highways, I think we have prisons full of that kind of free labor.